These people are our "allies"

[Saracen]

If a particular law is viewed as oppressive by a majority of the population* (who have no personal interest in the matter), then I do think that a review of the law is in order. I suppose it depends how you view the purpose a law: I see law as a way to enforce certain moral values broadly accepted by a given society, hence it is important that the majority of the population share those values and are provided a legal route for amendment. But what if the law is used to protect the ruler or a selective portion of the population (e.g. men)? If there are no legal option to oppose such law, then isn't disobedience the only form of opposition?

* Now I am putting a question mark as to whether other countries should have a say. Even if people can no longer point their finger at a single nation for playing the world police (i.e.. the US), I don't think that walking in, and throwing out their leaders will automatically win the heart of the populace. I am curious as to what are the opinion of Saudi women on this particular matter. And Saudi men. It may well be that the majority actually find the ruling crazy. Or perhaps they believe that justice was served. If it is the later, and any intervention from the outside, be it the US or the UN will be fruitless.

It's a dilemma.

If you had no say in a law, should you be bound by it? Morally, perhaps not. But the fact remains that if anyone can use the fact that they think a law is bad to break it at will, you have anarchy, and society, whatever type it is, collapses. If you can ignore one "bad" law, why not another? What happens when someone ignores the law against murder because they think it's "bad"? Suppose someone gets away with something in court on a technicality, and the victim decides to have their own 'justice' because the law is bad?

Which brings me back to who decides when a law is bad?

Suppose, for example, a country has a law because of their religious beliefs. It might be the oppression of the freedom of women, it might be the banning of flying kites or it might be the chopping off of hands for theft. I deplore all those examples as barbaric, but can I PROVE that their religion is wrong? Personally, I do not accept the right of anyone to impose their beliefs on others by force. If they want to live by it themselves, fine. Go right ahead. But I reject that kind of religious extremism as giving anyone a right to control others. But I could be wrong and those extremists just might have the one and only true direct line to the almighty and his/her wishes.

I have the right to think that such practices are barbaric, because that's my opinion. But I do NOT have the right to seek to impose my world-view on others, let alone other countries, because I am a product of my upbringing and environment, just like everyone else. I cannot know how much of my personal belief system is the product of a rational mind, and how much of it is canalised by my upbringing and environment. I believe it's a mix of both, with the rational rejecting the environmental where necessary, but I can't know that.

So ..... what determines our moral beliefs? What makes our moral principles right and someone else's wrong, especially if they have a sincere belief in their righteousness? As I said earlier, that's the logic that fuelled the Crusades, and what a wonderful idea that turned out to be. It's still poisoning Middle-East/West relations hundreds of years later.

You may be right that in some circumstances disobedience is the only practical form of opposition to 'bad' laws. It may also be the case that for a particularly obnoxious form of government, the utter collapse of society may be the only way to get rid of a regime and, hopefully, emerge on the far side of the bloodshed with something better. But there's a risk .... if you let society collapse, the likelihood is that at least for a while, the law of 'might is right' will win. Advocating civil disobedience is therefore a dangerous strategy.

[Moby-Dick]

ok , Admin Hat on.

By all means debate as ferociously as possible , but do so without any personal attacks. This includes similes and metaphors

do so and expect posts to go missing , or in the extreme case , accounts.

[iranu]

I'm sort of jumping in half way here but I've seen this story on a few threads. Does anyone know if the males were charged/convicted "for violating laws on segregation of the sexes"?

[excalibur2]

emm so you say...........These people are our "allies"

So your answer is not deal with or befriend any country that is nasty? Well i say "it's hard enough to get friends in this world, without making enemies". And not forgetting "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
In the political arena in history, in so many times you can't choose your allies and am sure today the UK and the USA would welcome, for example:- Russia and China to be our great "friend" an ally.

[Bluecube]

emm so you say...........These people are our "allies"

So your answer is not deal with or befriend any country that is nasty? Well i say "it's hard enough to get friends in this world, without making enemies". And not forgetting "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
In the political arena in history, in so many times you can't choose your allies and am sure today the UK and the USA would welcome, for example:- Russia and China to be our great "friend" an ally.

I never posed any answer at all. I merely drew attention to the fact that Saudi Arabia is a country we deal with and consider an ally, yet this is how they treat their people. By flogging them. By any civilised standards this is wrong. By all means, jail the woman (although I think this is wrong too) but giving her 200 lashes as well? That'll cause permanent damage. I dread to think what sort of scars that will leave. And all for sitting in a car with a man.

[JPreston]

...
Okay, so a "bad law" needs to be opposed including by disobedience? Who gets to define "bad laws"? That, taken as written, is an anarchist's charter. Can we all just ignore any law we consider to be "bad"?

In any society I can think of, disobeying laws is going to get you punished if you get caught. She got caught...

It's a dilemma.

If you had no say in a law, should you be bound by it? Morally, perhaps not. But the fact remains that if anyone can use the fact that they think a law is bad to break it at will, you have anarchy, and society, whatever type it is, collapses. If you can ignore one "bad" law, why not another? What happens when someone ignores the law against murder because they think it's "bad"? Suppose someone gets away with something in court on a technicality, and the victim decides to have their own 'justice' because the law is bad?

Which brings me back to who decides when a law is bad?

Suppose, for example, a country has a law because of their religious beliefs....can I PROVE that their religion is wrong? Personally, I do not accept the right of anyone to impose their beliefs on others by force. If they want to live by it themselves, fine. Go right ahead. But I reject that kind of religious extremism as giving anyone a right to control others. But I could be wrong and those extremists just might have the one and only true direct line to the almighty and his/her wishes....

I would normally call shenanigens after reading posts like that, and call them pure sophistry. But in this case I think sophistry is not the appropriate word, because sophistry implies the false arguments are presented plausibly and credibly, which those are not.

I don't think anyone is convinced for a second that criticising a law that requires women to be led around by their owners like dogs (on the occasions that they are actually let out at all) is in any way the road to anarchy - even you. I think by saying that all laws must obeyed regardless you are hoping to hit upon some kind of universally applicable pronouncement that means your position on this story cannot be assailed, but several examples of places when and where that reasoning has been false have already been given.

These aren't exactly laws about fox hunting are they? The argument could maybe be made there; who really cares all that much whether it's illegal or not, but given is it now illegal then the tory yokels should STFU and get in line. But by applying that argument everywhere without any further thought or consideration at all, you'd have stopped the slavery abolitionists, suffragettes, and resistance throughout Nazi occupied Europe.

Your religious justification is also specious - the bizarrely puritanican wahabbist cult that has been elevated to the legislature against popular will through western interference is no more 'legitimately' a religion than the Branch Davidians were. The carthaginians burned children in sacrifice to Moloch, I suppose 'who are we to criticise them, I can't prove them right or wrong' also applies there.

[JPreston]

I never posed any answer at all. I merely drew attention to the fact that Saudi Arabia is a country we deal with and consider an ally, yet this is how they treat their people. By flogging them. By any civilised standards this is wrong...

Not only that but Saudi still beheads people publicly for things like apostasy. Their rape laws have long been condemned by organisations such as Amnesty, for requiring that the victim must provide (IIRC) four independent male witnesses to the rape. Obviously, such measures exist purely to deny women any protection under law at all.

[excalibur2]

I never posed any answer at all. I merely drew attention to the fact that Saudi Arabia is a country we deal with and consider an ally, yet this is how they treat their people. By flogging them. By any civilised standards this is wrong. By all means, jail the woman (although I think this is wrong too) but giving her 200 lashes as well? That'll cause permanent damage. I dread to think what sort of scars that will leave. And all for sitting in a car with a man.

Well it seems to me that you are complaining about Saudi Arabia being our ally (by the title) and I agree with your point, but the west is not going to ruin relations with Saudi Arabia because of that as we need their oil and need them as a counter weight/power against Iran....it all comes under the name of "dirty politics" and that is the way it is.

[Zak33]

ok , Admin Hat on.

By all means debate as ferociously as possible , but do so without any personal attacks. This includes similes and metaphors

do so and expect posts to go missing , or in the extreme case , accounts.

agreed and backed to the hilt. No similies or metaphors. Personal bashing not happening here dudes.

However....top top thread

[MaddAussie]

A report on the original trial > Rape case brings Saudi laws into focus - Mideast/N. Africa - MSNBC.com

She was visiting a friend to retrieve a photo, was taken by other men (with her friend) and both of them where raped.

Now the way I see it is not about whether its a bad law (although I do think that) its the inconsistency of its application, its completely at whim of the judges what sentence is metered out.

TBH its not a legal system at all its more like feudal justice

[BEANFro Elite]

I'm not certain of the facts but considering Saudi Arabia is a country who's populace are primarily followers of Islam and given that the majority of the laws are derived from the Qu'ran itself.

Its well known that the Qu'ran states that men are "better" than women so laws are generally skewed towards the favour of men, but its argued that many of the laws and what the Qu'ran says are there to "protect" the modesty and respect of their women.

Us westerners can view this as barbaric oppresion of their women, which in my opinion it is in some ways, but thats just that.

I'd be interested to see the statistics of crimes that go on in Saudi Arabia as its one thing to have stiff laws with even more stiff / disproportionate punishment but if they aren't preventing crime from happening to a significant proportion to the population of the country in the first place then the law obviously needs to be revised.

[charleski]

Auschwitz crack retracted.

[acrobat]

acrobat, I suggest you read the UN Charter if you think that's the point of it. Not only is what you say is the point of the UN not the point of the UN, but the actions you propose the UN should take are specifically prohibited by it's Charter.

Hmm where did I put that thing? I think its in my other pants =(

Ahh, here it is:

The UN Charter:
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest

Surely this would be a common interest? I think most people would see it as a common interest to stop the systematic torture of people, particularly a rape victim.

No, no. I didn't mean you. Hypocritical of the UK. On the one hand, we fete Saudi royalty because their petro-dollars buy British aircraft and keep our unemployment figures down, and then turn around and condemn them for their laws? It's standard political practice - hypocrisy in action.

I dunno. Its our government doing that, not the British people. I don't particularly mind anyway. I'd rather we werent governed by hypocrites, but still, you can be a hypocrite, and yet still do the right thing when it really matters. I'd rather they did that, even if they are hypocrites the rest of the time. But like I said, it shouldn't be down to just one nation. It should be down to mankind on the whole to show that this isn't acceptable anymore.

[Saracen]

I would normally call shenanigens after reading posts like that, and call them pure sophistry. But in this case I think sophistry is not the appropriate word, because sophistry implies the false arguments are presented plausibly and credibly, which those are not.

I don't think anyone is convinced for a second that criticising a law that requires women to be led around by their owners like dogs (on the occasions that they are actually let out at all) is in any way the road to anarchy - even you. I think by saying that all laws must obeyed regardless you are hoping to hit upon some kind of universally applicable pronouncement that means your position on this story cannot be assailed, but several examples of places when and where that reasoning has been false have already been given.

These aren't exactly laws about fox hunting are they? The argument could maybe be made there; who really cares all that much whether it's illegal or not, but given is it now illegal then the tory yokels should STFU and get in line. But by applying that argument everywhere without any further thought or consideration at all, you'd have stopped the slavery abolitionists, suffragettes, and resistance throughout Nazi occupied Europe.

Your religious justification is also specious - the bizarrely puritanican wahabbist cult that has been elevated to the legislature against popular will through western interference is no more 'legitimately' a religion than the Branch Davidians were. The carthaginians burned children in sacrifice to Moloch, I suppose 'who are we to criticise them, I can't prove them right or wrong' also applies there.

You completely miss the point of what I said, and attribute to me things I neither said nor meant.

Look at the context, for example, of that first quote.

Charleski said "A bad law is a bad law, and needs to be opposed, whether by disobedience, by argument or other means."

I questioned who gets to determine when a law is a "bad law", because that sweeping statement, without limitation, is a charter for anyone who feels a law is bad to ignore it, including by disobedience or "other means". That last point is wide open. It could mean by legitimate protest to a representative, assuming that the person in question lives in a society where they even have a representative, or it could include sedition, terrorist bombs and revolution. So that statement needs the limitation of who defines when a law is bad, and when ignoring it is justified, and on what criteria. Otherwise, it's a rationale for everything from poll tax protests to armed insurrection.

So if any of us can justify ignoring a law because it's "bad", then it comes down to the criteria used by the individual to judge "bad". There are times when my personal judgement would be that extreme methods, including violence, would be justified. An example would be when a tyrannical regime, such as the Third Reich, imposes draconian and even murderous "laws" on it's people. And whilst I wouldn't put the Saudi regime in quite the same category as the Third Reich, it certainly isn't a regime I support or admire.

I don't like a lot about the Saudi regime, including the laws on segregation or the penalties imposed in this case. I said so in the first post in this thread. The "political extremist" argument I used is, if you like, reductio ad absurdum. If you taking a sweeping statement to it's limits, it exposes how sweeping it is.

To clarify :-

1) I do not like the Saudi regime
2) I do not like the nature of the way it governs
3) I do not like the segregation laws
4) I consider them "bad"
5) I do not approve of the fact that this women was punished under these laws, and I certainly don't approve of how she was punished.

But, and it's a big but ... while we have a right to disapprove of the laws and their application, and we all have a right to voice that disapproval, we do NOT, IMHO, have the right to dictate to the Saudis how they should rule and, given how intricately involved this country is with the Saudi regime, it would be hypocritical to do so while still actively supporting them. They are a sovereign nation and however strongly we disapprove of either their form of government or the operation of their judicial system, it's THEIR system.

The problem is that whenever we try to tell other nations how to run things, it goes spectacularly wrong. We tried to convert large parts of the Middle East to Christianity by sending the Crusaders to to save their poor heathen souls, at sword-point and by killing them if necessary. Well, that still hasn't been forgotten (or forgiven) in some parts of the world.

We stuck our noses into the Middle East again and ended up creating Israel. Well, however well-intentioned that particular piece of political interference was, it's been the root cause of a large part of the problems in the Middle East ever since. And who created Israel? Oh yeah.

Or go back a bit. We sent traders and then political representatives to India. All worked great for a while. Even the British "authorities" in India, by which I mean the representatives of the British state, showed respect for Indian traditions, and culture, and showed due deference to their religions. But then that changed, as the people "representing" us changed, and they decided, again, to "save the heathen" by introducing Christianity, and militantly at that. We did a lot of good in India, in my view. We introduced a lot of things that the Indians have chosen to keep, and model their modern state on. But we blew it by trying to ram our culture and religions, and yes, our morality, down their necks, like it or not.

So how did that end up? Well, with the partition of India, with the creation of Pakistan, with the greatest politically motivated mass migration in history, and with two nuclear-armed powers barely restraining themselves from war over Kashmir for decades. Again, a cracking result for British attempts to shove our morality, culture and rule down other's throats - a nuclear stand-off.

Or Afghanistan. We got thrown out of there once before, but have we learned our lesson? Seems not. The problem there is that the West (and I include, rather ironically, the Soviet bloc in that, just for the sake of convenience) chose to act out their aggressions, by proxy, in the Middle East. Obviously, the Middle East is of huge strategic importance (read "oil"). The West spent decades fearing that the Russian military would come rolling West to stick us all under the communist yoke. Conversely, the Russians feared (and still do, according to Putin) that the objective of the West was to destroy Russia, militarily if necessary and by subversion if we had to. Given our activities in other parts of the world, it's not an entirely unreasonable fear. So the Russians invaded Afghanistan, and we (mainly the US) armed the mujjahideen. The result? bin-Laden and Al Qaeda. Way to go, West. What a result from interference, however well-intentioned and however politically expedient it seemed at the time.

Or, for a situation with a tighter parallel to the Saudis, there's Persia and the Shah. We supported his regime for years, because of oil, and because it gave us a "friend" in a politically and geopolitically important region. It was deemed to be necessary, whatever the level of distaste for the regime and it's internal policies. The result? The Ayatollahs, and as a direct descendent of that, a militant Iranian presidency also determined, it certainly seems, to seek a nuclear capability.

Oh, and while we're talking about Iran let's not forget Iraq. I don't mean the current balls-up. I mean supporting Saddam. Again, it was superpower warfare by proxy. Iran and Iraq have their own problems, for sure, but with Russia seeing the fall of the Shah and the Islamic state's antipathy for the West (due in no small part to our support for the Shah) as a wonderful opportunity, they sought to support Iran. So Iran was armed by the Soviets and Iraq, on the principle of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', was armed by the West. The result? A bloody conflict between Iran and Iraq. Millions dead, Iran even more militantly anti-Western (at government level, at least) and sure-as-hell suspicious of the intentions of the West, and Saddam's murderous and oppressive regime firmly entrenched in Iraq.

So then we decide to remove Saddam because, after all, he has all those nasty WMD and represents a serious and immediate threat to our interests and the stability of the region. Well, removing him also proved to be a rip-roaring success, judging by the current farce.


Again and again, we have sought to impose our belief systems and moral code on others, and again and again, it's been disastrous.


Someone mentioned earlier that I seemed to be arguing that we should not have opposed apartheid in South Africa because that was a "law". Of course we should oppose it. But how? Using the methods we used. Using trade embargoes, sporting embargoes, by mass public boycotts of companies trading with that regime. We are FULLY entitled to refuse to support, or even deal with, such regimes. And, rather to my surprise I must say, that particular obnoxious idea imploded relatively bloodlessly (and that was the surprise) and consigned that idea to the dustbin of history.

But do we even do THAT with Saudi? Do we hell. We fete Saudi dignitaries and royalty in the name of political expediency (read "oil" again). We show them the red carpet, we dine them at Buck Palace while all the time knowing full well that they have a regime that allows things like this segregation law.

As a nation, we can't have it all ways. When we seek to tell others they have to follow our codes, our laws or our morals, it goes wrong. When we grit our teeth, hold our national noses and deal with regimes like the Saudis, despite knowing what their regime is like, in the cause of political expediency and vested self-interest, like we did with the Shah, we end up with our worst nightmare in charge of that country. Such a result in Saudi is not beyond possibility. Sooner or later, the current regime will, in my view, collapse, just like the Shah did. And WE, as a nation, will once again be seen as having supported and armed that regime, regardless of how much hypocritical self-righteous indignation we may show about their laws ..... while we blithely sell them more jet fighters. (And that hypocrisy I'm referring to is national and governmental, not the indignation of individuals as shown here).

So I'll say it again. They're a sovereign nation and while we all, as individuals, can morally object to such laws, we do not have a right to tell them what their laws should be with one hand, while we actively support that self-same regime with the other hand.

It's about time we realised, as indeed the UN Charter stipulates, that governments (however much we dislike them) have a right to govern their own people. That's precisely the basis, however distasteful, on which the government decline to intervene forcibly in Zimbabwe (yet another raging success story of British political interference, by the way).

So we, as a nation, would be utter hypocrits to condemn the Saudi system while simultaneously doing everything we can to prop it up because they're a powerful "friend" in the region. If we really meant it, we wouldn't just utter mealy-mouthed criticism, we'd be reinstituting that BAe fraud inquiry, we'd have cancelled the pomp and pageantry for Saudi despots, and we'd be selling our aircraft elsewhere ..... or accepting the loss of jobs that the loss or orders implies.

We'd be putting our actions behind our words, not just muttering criticism (quietly so as not to offend the Saudi's, of course), but the kind of actions we used against apartheid. If we object to such oppressive regimes on moral grounds, we make ourselves look entirely hypocritical and venal when we condemn out of one of our faces, while doing trade negotiations as hard as we can with the other face. Some moral objection that is .... just so long as it doesn't affect our wallets or cost jobs.



That's my stance. The Saudi regime is nasty, those laws are "bad" and I deplore what happened to that poor woman, BUT we should not seek to dictate laws to other governments on moral grounds, especially while we're in cosily tucked up in bed with them.

If we think they're so bad, stop trading with them. Cut them off the way we did (eventually, and rather half-heartedly at times) with South Africa's apartheid regime. We CAN morally refuse to deal with a regime we regard as despicable ..... but we don't, do we?

[charleski]

I fell into a trap, founded purely of my own outrage, and should have known better. That is an element for which I apologise and wish to redact. The foundation of my argument is unaffected, and unadressed, however. And this is an argument that extends FAR beyond the bounds of this board.

Saracen, you have surmised your argument thus: "we do NOT, IMHO, have the right to dictate to the Saudis how they should rule"
We DO, absolutely, have this right. In fact, this is central to the entire concept of human rights. Human rights apply universally, or they apply nowhere.
And, lest anyone think this has anything to do with religion, the Wahabist interpretation of Islam that is responsible for these perversions can be likened to the Nederlandse Gereformede Kerk's approval of Apartheid (this was why I invoked South Africa earlier). Both are a perversion of their root religion, and Saudi Wahabism is no more a reflection of Islam than NGK racism was a reflection of Christianity.

We have the right, indeed the duty, to oppose such perversion. This is the duty that we must accept to ensure universal human rights. If you chose to deny that duty, if you chose to deny the pursuance of universal human rights, then you must accept that your decision places you in a precarious moral position.

I grew up in South Africa. I saw the impossible made possible through the will of the people. I saw the final, living proof of the Charterist credo that 'The People Shall Govern' bring down an entenched and enriched government that was founded on cruelty and lies. Don't tell me you can't change the way things are, because I've seen people changing the way things are.


USA vs Alstotter et al.: :As applied in the field of international law that principle [ex post facto] requires proof before conviction that the accused knew or should have known that in matters of international concern he was guilty of participation in a nationally organized system of injustice and persecution shocking to the moral sense of mankind..." (emphasis mine)

[acrobat]

I appreciate what (I think) you are saying there Saracen. I think its probably quite a mature and wordly view. Its not surprising you had to justify it though.

Basically, you are talking about imposing personal beliefs on others. Who has the right to do that? The guy with the biggest guns? The girl with the most education? Or are girls excluded from making decisions because they are thick and shouldnt be allowed to vote? Its all about personal beliefs, and its hard to say one is right and the others are wrong. Even using Hitler as an example (because he was so extreme). He wanted to wipe us all out, and then breed a new, superior race of people under his one banner. Who is to say that is wrong? We may say he was a psycho. But he (and his supporters), thought HE was right and WE where wrong.

One way of looking at it, may be that we hear about these Saudis getting however many "lashes" for a crime etc.. And I (and most people probably) think, "Thats bloody stupid and barbaric". But really, its not all that different from everywhere else. I mean, whats worse? Giving someone 200 lashes for breaking a law they believe in? Or strapping somebody to a chair against their will, and putting 50 billion volts through their brain while they pee and crap themselves from the horror of the situation? The US's death penalty is as barbaric as anything imo. You can argue that the yanks only do that to murderers and the like, and the Saudis are out of line, because they use punishment for less severe crimes. But thats not really the point. The point is, both countries do barbaric things, as punishment for breaking laws they believe. So who are we to say what is right or wrong? Infact, we are no angels either. We lock people in a cell and leave them there for the rest of their lives.... Yeah we feed them, but if I had to choose between being killed mercifully, or sent to prison for the rest of my life... I think I would probably rather die. Sure you can read in prison.. and even watch TV in some prisons. But whats the point? You are never going to learn anything and then put that knowledge to use... You are never going to read about somewhere beautiful, and then one day get to go there... You are never going to meet someone and fall in love... Nothing is EVER going to happen. You are going to eat crappy food on a metal tray, at the same time, for every single one of your remaining days.... And its going to be *exactly* the same, every single day, until the one day that you dont wake up.
To me, that is probably less merciful than just being zapped. If you think about those two options long enough, 200 lashes seems like a nice option

But I still think its just plain old human nature to make your own minds up about stuff, and then fight for whatever you believe in. And looking at the crimes... it gets people going... Killing someone is so incredibly wrong, that a severe punishment is warranted. (I still don't agree with the death penalty though - or even prisons.. but thats another topic). But, yeah, what makes me uneasy is when I see similarly harsh penalties being given out by the likes of the Saudis, for something that just is not a serious crime. Meeting a man blah blah. Thats just stupid. But its probably tied into their religious beliefs more than anything. So I may think its stupid, but maybe that makes me stupid, because I am intollerant of other religions and their (f'ed up haha) beliefs

We shouldn't really interfere with their religious beliefs, or petty laws like speed limits and stuff, but nobody would suggest that anyway. But torturing people for very none-serious crimes just isn't right, and I think other people SHOULD interfere. Is it right to impose our beliefs? Maybe. Maybe not. But is it right for us to stand by and watch that happen when we could do something about it? Maybe that is more wrong...

Thats where it boils down to personal beliefs and human nature to make sense of it and do something about it. And the only way of making sense of that, is to probably just go with the majority. Hence democracy and all that.

So basically, if the majority of people in the world (not the UK), think its wrong to beat people for none-severe crimes, and to prevent people from even meeting each other and talking, which is a human rights issue etc.. then I think something should be done. I don't think it should automatically be tanks and bombs, it should be diplomats and sanctions. Etc. But if that doesn't work, its down to the majorities of the world to decide if tanks and bombs are warranted. And thats why I liked the idea of the UN so much. They should be the world police. The voice of reason for the entire world. The democracy enforcement agency for planet Earth. The righteousness and goodness and human rights enforcement of planet earth. If the UN's representatives are voted by majorities all over the world, then they should be like the voice of reason and the voice of the majorities.

But admittedly thats still messy and not ideal But thats all we've got isn't it? Isn't there a famous quote that says something like, "Democracy is the worst form of government - except all the others"? Thats all we have So yeah, we don't have the right to interfere with a lot of aspects of other countries and cultures, and I don't think we should. But we have the right to disapprove and use sanctions and stuff like you said. But in some extreme cases, I think its right to step in and do something. I think thats our job as humans, nevermind Britons. I can't really justify it very well, maybe because its impossible to ever justify... At the end of the day, it probably just boils down to who has the strongest will and strongest armies... And thats not fair. But life isn't fair. And thats how history has been since the beginning of time. And maybe that why are we are such a successful species. We go to war over our beliefs like a bunch of self righteous nutters..., but maybe that is part of what makes us what we are, and why we are continually improving and evolving? Maybe without all that imposing of wills of majorities, we would still be in the dark ages. We are pre-programmed as humans to DO stuff, follow our minds hearts and instincts and its got us this far, so I'm inclined to think it works. (Albeit in a crap kind of way).